Introduction:

In the case of Rajesh Ramachandran and Another v. State of Punjab and Another, the Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed a defamation case against Rajesh Ramachandran, former Editor-in-Chief of The Tribune, and other journalists for publishing a report in which Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann had accused Congress leaders of offering money and position to then Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Nazar Singh Manshahia. The court, presided over by Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, ruled that the complaint lacked any material evidence to establish that the journalists had any intent to defame the complainant.

Arguments:

The complainant, Nazar Singh Manshahia, alleged that the journalists, including Rajesh Ramachandran and Parvesh Sharma of The Tribune, Dr. Swaraj Bir Singh of The Punjabi Tribune, and reporter Gurdeep Singh Lali, had falsely published allegations against him. He contended that the report wrongly portrayed him as having accepted bribes from Congress leaders and that it was intended to humiliate and defame him. On the other hand, the petitioners argued that they had merely reported statements made by Bhagwant Mann without any personal imputations. They further contended that there was no evidence to indicate that the publication was made to harm the complainant’s reputation, an essential ingredient under Section 499 IPC. Additionally, they asserted that the case lacked any prima facie evidence to summon them for trial.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, after hearing both sides, ruled that the complaint was devoid of merit. The court emphasized that to establish defamation under Section 499 IPC, there must be an intention to harm or at least knowledge that the publication would harm the complainant’s reputation. However, the complaint contained no such specific allegations against the journalists. The court also referred to the precedent set in N. Ram v. Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, Haryana Prant, where a similar defamation case against a newspaper editor was dismissed due to the absence of malice or intent to defame. The High Court found that the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) had wrongly issued the summoning order without any supporting evidence. As a result, the criminal complaint under Sections 500 and 120-B IPC, along with Sections 66 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, was quashed.